Gambit7

I agree, but Ron Paul isnt a viable candidate. So I dont mention him. It's a waste of effort and of a vote. If you truly want to support Ron Paul, then try to get rid of bipartisan govt. first. Otherwise, it's a waste of time.

Ron Paul is interesting to me, as I've said before. But as I've also said, I cant "picture" him as US President. He has this dainty attitude about him I dont like. Hillary is scarier to me.

__________________

Hambergler

Why Ron Paul is afraid of Obama.

http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2...ron-pauls.html

__________________

TheSkudDestroyer

So THAT'S why all the neo nazi's (literally) on youtube love ron paul!

__________________

ScratchMonkey

The 3rd quote of Hamberglers is about the Israeli government. How is that racist?

The other quotes have been attributed to a newsletter staffer, and uncharacteristic of Paul's writing style. I'll bet if you dig around in the publications attached to the other candidates, you can find similar crap that they didn't authorize. Unless they spent their whole lives grooming for office to run others lives and sucking up to voters instead of living their own lives. If that's not your life objective, you probably don't scrutinize as carefully what others are doing inside your businesses.

__________________
Sig

ScratchMonkey

The pubbie establishment has systematically suppressed his existence in the campaign. His loyalty to old time conservative values of liberty, fiscal responsibility, and limited government are an embarrassment to modern pubbies who are just "democrat-lite".

As Gambit says, the first thing we have to do is break the one-party monopoly. (Pubbies and dems are just two facets of the same big-government party, giving the illusion of a contest when in fact there is none.) An interesting blog on the latest way this monopoly suppresses criticism:

http://www.downsizedc.org/blog/2008/...vs_free_speech

__________________
Sig

Gambit7

Honestly, racially I took more offense to the Clintons' statements the past couple of weeks then to Ron Paul's (if they were indeed his). Ron Paul's statements were harsh, but largely true.

The Clintons have just been straight up demeaning.

Speaking of which, I'm sure Bill wants to pull his aged hair out now that the Kennedys support Obama (bobbie kennedy pt. 2) and Edwards dropped out of the race. Aside from the deep South, Edwards took votes from Obama. Things have tightened up now.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

An interesting critique of Paul:

http://globalpolitician.com/24067-politics

It won't really sway my vote, as I'm voting for the ideas, not the win. The idea is to create a constituency that the other candidates must chase. If you vote for a "possible", that candidate can ignore your true desires, and go look for additional votes from the swing constituencies. That's why pubbies largely ignore gun control and allowed the Brady Bill to pass. But if they see a big chunk of votes going to a minority candidate, that's opportunity for them to seek, and they'll come pandering for those votes.

__________________
Sig

ScratchMonkey

Contrary to the critique linked in my last message, Paul has just introduced specific legislation to advance freedom and human rights:

http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=82

__________________
Sig

Lucky Shot

Edwards is stepping out. A poll was conducted of the people who have voted for Edwards and their second choice will now likely become their first choice. If that holds true, who benefits?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080130/D8UGAGF00.html

Lucky Shot

Gambit7

It only benefits/hurts on a district-level basis. Edwards hurts Clinton in the South and charateristically "red" states, because he takes the the racially biased "white vote" away from her. In "bluer" states, Edwards hurts Obama more... because those who dont like Hillary just plain dont like her and would likely vote for Obama with Edwards out the way, plus... Obama's politics are more akin to Edwards, they're both men, and they're both relative political outsiders within the party.

The only reason I'd say Edwards hurts Obama overall is if America's bigotry is just as bad as it's always been. I like to be optimistic about this though, but only the polls will tell. Personally, I dont see how someone could support Edwards and then all of a sudden support Hillary - doesnt make sense to me... except on racial grounds. Edwards has very nearly endorsed Obama throughout the entire campaign (in between his occasional swipes), and I wouldnt doubt if he ran on Obama's ticket if he won the primary. Therefore it makes more sense his votes would go to him, not to Clinton... unless his skin-color was holding him up.

Your poll is kinda borked because the race is basically a 2-person contest now. If 4 of 10 Edwards supporters would vote for Hillary, that leaves 6 of 10 for Obama. The statement about only 1/4 going to Obama doesnt make sense. And how to you have 1/4 of 10? That poll must've been done a long time ago.

__________________

Lucky Shot

Well, the first two paragraphs are your opinion unless you would like to cite some sources as to the level of bigotry throughout various states.

The poll though had a place for who they would vote for second and Clinton received 40% and Obama would receive 25%. Other options receive the remainder. By your reasoning, Clinton should receive the 75% of votes that Obama didn't and clearly that didn't happen. No Bork'd, No Kerry'd, that's the way the poll respondents answered.

Lucky Shot

Hambergler

These newsletter were coming out for years. You want me to believe he was oblivious and not one single person found these news letters objectionable and brought them to Ron Pauls attention? This is the true Ron Paul, life outside of "political grooming". Now he is curling up using the it wasn't me excuse. Puleeez!

__________________

ScratchMonkey

What's with Edwards calling for poverty to be a campaign issue for the remaining candidates? Since when has it not been a Democrat issue? And why's it such a hot button for him?

__________________
Sig

Kerostasis

The democrats only have 3 real issues: Poverty/class warfare, Race, and Gender, and 2 of those issues were kinda "taken" by the other candidates. Poverty was all Edwards had to run on.

I suppose there's also the "anti-war" platform, but that only plays well when you can convince the people that we're losing the war, and right now we're winning.

__________________

ScratchMonkey

And because the pubbies don't obsess over poverty, class, race, and gender, they're obviously anti-poor, racist, and sexist. From what I see, pubbies obsess over law and order. (Wars on terrorism or drugs are just a specific focus of this general theme.) They used to obsess over fiscal responsibility, but that hasn't seemed to be the case for a few decades. They talk about it, and then spend like crazy.

Back when I was a kid and briefly played Dungeons and Dragons, l liked Chaotic Good alignment. I'm not a big fan of law and order for its own sake.

__________________
Sig